Marina Garcia Marmolejo
How Judge Marmolejo rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Marmolejo
Marina Garcia Marmolejo is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Garcia Marmolejo received a commission on October 4, 2011.
Judge Marmolejo's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Marmolejo, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Serve the civil procedures with the summons and complaint or removal papers.
“THESE PROCEDURES MUST BE SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OR REMOVAL PAPERS”
Filing
Review any AI-assisted filing for factual and legal accuracy before submitting it.
“Attorneys and self-represented litigants must ensure that any filing prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or similar tools) is thoroughly reviewed for factual and legal accuracy prior to submission.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
How Judge Marmolejo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rincon's unopposed civil-rights case, Marmolejo granted the officers qualified-immunity summary judgment on the false-arrest and search claims after reviewing the record and finding no triable constitutional violation.
“For the foregoing reasons, Officers Ibarra and Jalomo are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s false arrest claim and unreasonable search and seizure claim.”
In Rincon's false-arrest case, Marmolejo held that probable cause for a curfew offense supported the later arrests too and granted two officers qualified-immunity summary judgment.
“Because probable cause to arrest for the curfew offense extends to the subsequent arrests, the Court finds that Officers Ibarra and Jalomo are plainly entitled to qualified immunity and GRANTS their motion for summary judgment as to the false arrest claims (Dkt. No. 113).”
In a prolonged immigration-detention habeas case, a petitioner who shows that removal is not reasonably foreseeable can obtain release when the government fails to rebut that showing. The court adopted that application of Zadvydas, granted the writ, denied dismissal, and imposed a prompt release deadline subject to statutory supervision.
“Petitioner met his burden under the Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) framework to demonstrate that his removal was not reasonably foreseeable, and that Respondents failed to rebut that showing”
In a criminal suppression ruling, video and timing evidence showed the officer continued a traffic stop after the stated basis for detention had dissipated. The court rejected the government’s good-faith argument and suppressed the resulting evidence and statements.
“prolong a stop once reasonable suspicion has been dispelled”
In one civil-rights pleading dispute, the court allowed a false-arrest claim and a retaliation claim against two officers to proceed while dismissing the other claims and defendants.
“The motion is DENIED as to Erik Limon’s (1) Fourth Amendment false arrest claim”
Procedural preferences
In a case with timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report, she reviewed the report de novo and adopted it in part while modifying it in part.
“Plaintiff filed objections to the Report within the fourteen-day objection period. ... The Court thus reviews the Report de novo. ... After a careful review of the filings, the Report, and applicable authorities, the Court ADOPTS IN PART and MODIFIES IN PART the Report.”
In Nuncio's suit over Barrientos's death in county custody, Marmolejo dismissed an intake-policy claim because the pleaded facts did not show that the policy caused his illness and death.
“Because it cannot reasonably be inferred that an inadequate intake policy was the ‘moving force’ leading to Barrientos’ sickness and death, this unconstitutional policy claim is DISMISSED.”
In a removed personal-injury action, the court required the defendant to establish a federal question on the plaintiffs’ state law claims. Uncertainty about removal and the lack of federal jurisdiction led to remand.
“Since any doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand, the Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Tanager.”
In Cortes Mendez’s habeas case after removal, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to order a return arising from execution of a valid removal order. It dismissed the petition without prejudice and denied the remaining emergency requests as moot.
“the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s Count 1, which necessarily arises out of Respondents decisions to execute a valid removal order.”
Cautions
In Grimes's prisoner-medical-care case, Marmolejo found that disagreement with the doctor's medical opinion and the extensive treatment record did not establish a triable deliberate-indifference claim.
“But Plaintiff’s disagreement with Dr. Fitts’ medical opinion does not establish deliberate indifference.”
In Grimes's case, Marmolejo found repeated frivolous motions sanctionable after an earlier warning, summarily denied the motions, and terminated the separate miscellaneous action.
“Plaintiff’s contumacious conduct warrants sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1), 11(c), and the Court’s inherent power.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Sheriff Cuellar in his official and individual capacity, Section 1983 unconstitutional policy claim and failure-to-train-or-supervise claim against Webb County, and wrongful death claim under the TWDS are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, the following claims remain pending: Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against the Jailer Defendants in their individual capacities and her TTCA wrongful death claim against Webb County.”
“the Court GRANTS Officers Ibarra and Jalomo's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 113) ... Officers Ibarra and Jalomo are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's false arrest claim and unreasonable search and seizure claim.”
“the Court GRANTS ... Sergeant Fernandez's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 115). ... Sergeant Fernandez is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's unreasonable search and seizure claim.”
“Because the Court did not rest its decision on Plaintiff's alleged failure to respond to Sergeant Fernandez's Requests for Admissions, Plaintiff's Motion for Withdrawal of Admission Pursuant to FRCP 36(b) (Dkt. No. 126) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 116) is GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 131) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 131) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice or alternatively without prejudice (Dkt. No. 43) is GRANTED. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”
“The Commissioner's Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED, judgment is ENTERED in Plaintiff's favor, and this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
This is a minor-settlement-approval order that rules on no contested party motion. After a settlement hearing, MJ John A. Kazen issued an R&R recommending approval of the proposed settlement as to a minor plaintiff (T.V.); the parties waived objection on the record. Marmolejo reviewed for plain error, ADOPTED the R&R, APPROVED the settlement, and ordered the funds deposited in an interest-bearing account until the minor turns 18. The order states: 'the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 62) as the findings and opinion of the Court. The Court hereby APPROVES the proposed settlement as it pertains to Minor Plaintiff T.V.'
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Referral to Mediation/ADR (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 1). Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED (Dkt. No. 13).”
“Petitioner’s Habeas Petition (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED IN PART.”
“Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED.”
“Petitioner’s request for EAJA fees and costs is DENIED.”
“Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED”
“the Court STRIKES Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Deadlines (Dkt. No. 11).”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT for lack of jurisdiction.”
“Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Civ. Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 982) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Civ. Dkt. No. 11; Dkt. No. 1002) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to the 406th Judicial District Court for Webb County, Texas.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 104 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 126 days (N = 2).
- Laredo-division docket. The current (2026) caseload is dominated by alien-detainee 2241 habeas petitions involving the Laredo Processing Center, Rio Grande detention facilities, and CoreCivic.
- Across the ten published orders reviewed, the matters include prisoner civil rights, Fourth Amendment claims, jail-death litigation, Social Security, consumer and mortgage disputes, settlement approval, mediation procedure, and immigration-detention habeas relief.
- The sampled terminated civil cases also include insurance, immigration-administrative, and motor-vehicle disputes, reflecting a border-division mix heavy on immigration, criminal, and self-represented prisoner matters.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Marmolejo: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,442 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,371 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 871 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 58 | 31.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 5,086 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 4,762 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 4,595 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,745 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 5,009 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,233 | 7.5 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Marmolejo with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Marmolejo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Marmolejo's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace